[robocup-small] rules discussion

[Mark Tomko]

We've also all witnessed in the past that the technical committee has 
been painfully slow at finalizing rules, leaving teams struggling to 
adjust to the new regulations in the last month(s) before the 
tournament.  A vote will decide the issues right now.

While I don't presume to speak for my old team, I'd suggest you provide 
a list of suggested changes, and let the teams vote for them.

Mark Tomko

On Dec 2, 2004, at 7:36 PM, Sean Verret wrote:

> Hey Everyone,
>
> As much as a vote would be nice, we've all witnessed in the past and
> even witnessed in the past discussions that few teams respond to this
> list.
>
> The TC was elected to make decisions for the better of the community.
> We've heard your numerous opinions and we're going to go over the past
> 100+ emails and judge all the opinions regarding the changes we
> outlined.
>
> On 15 December, the TC will release the changes for 2005 and give our
> reasons for our decisions.  The official rules have to be released for
> 15 January.
>
> Thank you everyone for all of your thoughts and ideas.
>
> Sean Verret
> TC Chair
>
> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 05:24, Raul Rojas wrote:
>> There were many comments about the rules. That is good, but now
>> we have to make a good summary of the main issues put forward by the
>> teams and try to see where there is agreement, and where not.
>> I think that most points could be decided by a vote. If the
>> vote is too close (like 10 to 11, for example), the technical 
>> committee
>> decides on that issue.
>>
>> Let me try to summarize some points and say something about the field
>> wall
>> at the end:
>>
>> Rule 1:
>>
>> There are two proposals: to limit all pushing by the robots to 50 cm,
>> not to limit it. I am for not limiting the distance a robot can push
>> the ball (with or without dribbler), because it is an artificial
>> limitation
>> which actually decreases the range of options for a team. Passing will
>> not
>> improve: such a limitation will actually make it easier to trap a 
>> robot
>> handling the ball. Just go against this robot with two or three robots
>> and that's it, it is trapped and will not be able to pass, or do
>> anything.
>>
>> I propose that teams with dribbler can also push the ball beyond the 
>> 50
>> cm limit (but with dribbler motor off), so that all teams have the 
>> same
>> range of options.
>>
>> My proposal does not affect any team negatively. The proposed 50cm 
>> limit
>> would
>> actually empoverish the game. Let the range of options open, this will
>> produce
>> more strategic variability and better games.
>>
>> Rule 2:
>>
>> there seems to be agreement that moving the ball a little inside is
>> better.
>> Some teams think that having a slope on the boundary makes easier to 
>> let
>> the
>> ball roll back.
>>
>> Rule 6:
>>
>> I did not really see any convincing argument for having "official
>> colors", which
>> become unofficial once the lightning is left variable and is not
>> standard.
>>
>> Rule 7:
>>
>> 6 robots per team seems to be not a very popular idea
>>
>>
>> WALL:
>>
>> I agree with the Cornell team, that dropping the wall sounds nice, but
>> it has
>> actually made the game deteriorate. Seven seconds of average
>> uninterrupted game
>> is just too low a value. If there is no other possible solution, I am
>> also
>> for reintroducing the wall. We cannot compare our league with mid-size
>> or
>> the dogs. Their robots are five to ten times slower: having no wall 
>> does
>> not
>> stop the game there as often as in our case. Making the game longer is
>> not the
>> fix we need. We need to keep the ball in play. If the only way to do
>> this is by
>> having a wall, let us have a wall.
>>
>> This is such an important issue that we should have a discussion/vote
>> exclusively
>> about it.
>>
>> Raul Rojas
>> FU Fighters Team
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu
>> [mailto:robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu] Im Auftrag von Raffaello
>> D'Andrea
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2004 04:46
>> An: robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
>> Betreff: [robocup-small] Comments
>>
>>
>> Our final comments:
>>
>> 1. There should be a statement by the rules committee to confirm that
>> the 20% rule is in effect at any instant of the game, including 
>> during a
>> chip kick.  This will prevent last minute disputes at competition.
>>
>> 2. The enlargement of the keep-out area around an inbounding robot is
>> very important. In conjunction with the 10 cm offset it should improve
>> the chances of a successful throw-in.
>>
>> 3. There is a major problem with the quality of play due to the ball
>> being out of bounds most of the time.  We don't think the proposed
>> changes are enough to make a significant improvement.  We think that 
>> the
>> single best thing we could do to improve quality of play is to bring
>> back the walls.
>> The walls not being there on a real soccer pitch is not a good enough
>> reason to not have them.
>>
>>
>>
>> *****************************************
>>   Prof. Raffaello D'Andrea
>>   101 Rhodes Hall
>>   Sibley School of Mech. & Aero. Engr.
>>   Cornell University
>>   Ithaca, NY 14853-7501
>>   http://www.mae.cornell.edu/Raff
>>   (607) 255-0710 (Voice)
>>   (607) 255-1222 (FAX)
>> *****************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> robocup-small mailing list
>> robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
>> https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> robocup-small mailing list
>> robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
>> https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small
>
> _______________________________________________
> robocup-small mailing list
> robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
> https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small